My experience with the fund has been slightly different, but also disappointing.
The fund rejected my application, but didn't seem to stand by their own conclusions.
I submitted an application which was rejected. The fund manager offered to provide feedback, however over the course of the conversation, we discussed how the concerns they raised were things that we already had on our radar, and that our approach was to tackle those issues head on and "fail fast" (i.e. work out whether the issues were surmountable, and if not, pivot).
I was confused that the fund manager sounded like they were updating over the course of the conversation, because I wasn't saying anything which wasn't in the application.
I then mentioned that someone in the project team might be able to fund the project from his own pocket, but if the project wasn't impactful enough, he would prefer to use the money on higher impact things, and invited the fund manager to help us make a better decision. The fund manager didn't seem to think they could add much value given that they thought that I'm clearly thoughtful about how to assess such projects.
I would have liked it if the fund had provided either feedback or funding. I came away with neither.
Reasons to be cautious when updating on this information
The main reason that readers should be cautious when updating on this comment is that this refers to something which happened multiple years ago. This is relevant because:
The fund managers are probably different people now (although presumably there is some continuity of processes). [I recommend you update moderately for this point]
EAIF has outlined a specific strategy which they didn't have at the time. When they had a broader remit, it was presumably harder for them to make effective decisions. [I recommend you update moderately for this point]
Although I did point out that other EA money might fund the project, and I did ask for feedback to help stop that money going to this project if it weren't high impact enough, when the fund manager didn't feel able to provide a rationale for rejection, I didn't then push for the Fund to provide us with funding. I felt this would have violated norms of respecting their decision. However doing so might have caused them to come up with reasons which they didn't state in the call. Overall, I find this less convincing, because if they did come up with more reasons, then they would have had to essentially contradict themselves, which means my conclusion of low confidence in their decision-making remains unchanged. [I recommend you update to a small extent for this point]
I can't guarantee that I've remembered things correctly. [I recommend you update significantly for this point with regard to certain details, listed below, and to a small extent for the most important element, see below]
In case it helps, I can expand on the "potential for misremembering" point:
I'm very confident that the call was for feedback on rejection, and that it ended with the fund manager conceding that he could not defend the decision to reject the application.
Things I can't remember very well:
Although I definitely remembering thinking that we were discussing things which were in the application, I can't remember whether I looked back at the application to check. I can't rule out the possibility that the feedback call included new information, but I do think I would have remembered if the fund manager had indicated that something was new.
I don't have high confidence in my impression that the fund manager was showing signs of updating in the call, as they weren't super-expressive. I can't remember enough detail to know how confident we should be of this point.
I can't remember how cruxy the "fail fast" element of the discussion was.
Overall, I came away with low confidence in their decision-making ability, and would not recommend that donors provide funds to them.
Sorry to go anon on this one. Also, I appreciate the details here are (deliberately) vague enough that it will be hard for the fund managers to identify the case or respond. I'm sorry about this, but I also don't want to doxx myself.
My experience with the fund has been slightly different, but also disappointing.
The fund rejected my application, but didn't seem to stand by their own conclusions.
I submitted an application which was rejected. The fund manager offered to provide feedback, however over the course of the conversation, we discussed how the concerns they raised were things that we already had on our radar, and that our approach was to tackle those issues head on and "fail fast" (i.e. work out whether the issues were surmountable, and if not, pivot).
I was confused that the fund manager sounded like they were updating over the course of the conversation, because I wasn't saying anything which wasn't in the application.
I then mentioned that someone in the project team might be able to fund the project from his own pocket, but if the project wasn't impactful enough, he would prefer to use the money on higher impact things, and invited the fund manager to help us make a better decision. The fund manager didn't seem to think they could add much value given that they thought that I'm clearly thoughtful about how to assess such projects.
I would have liked it if the fund had provided either feedback or funding. I came away with neither.
Reasons to be cautious when updating on this information
The main reason that readers should be cautious when updating on this comment is that this refers to something which happened multiple years ago. This is relevant because:
In case it helps, I can expand on the "potential for misremembering" point:
Overall, I came away with low confidence in their decision-making ability, and would not recommend that donors provide funds to them.
Sorry to go anon on this one. Also, I appreciate the details here are (deliberately) vague enough that it will be hard for the fund managers to identify the case or respond. I'm sorry about this, but I also don't want to doxx myself.